JUDGMENT : Rashid Ali Dar, J. 1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks quashment of Order dated 06.03.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1, i.e. J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short the learned Tribunal) whereby the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu and order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Tehbildar, R.S. Pura, Jammu have been set aside. 2. The pertinent facts have been noted in the petition and also recited in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, judgment passed by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner and Tehsildar R.S. Pura and may not need a repetition. Relevant it may be to state that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an application bearing MP No. 01/2016 seeking permission to file supplementary affidavit which was allowed in terms of order dated 02.03.2017 and the supplementary affidavit along with documents was taken on record. To appreciate the controversy involved in the case, it is deemed proper to have reference of the averments of the supplementary affidavit along with the objections filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. (1) Sh. Ram Nath was the resident of Tehsil Palandri (now in POK). Due to disturbance, he along with his wife and other relatives migrated and became refugee. The land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas under Khasra No. 34 (4 kanals 2 marlas), Khasra No. 35 (6 kanals 17 marlas), Khasra No. 62-min (4 kanals 15 marlas) and Khasra No. 69-min (9 marlas) situated at Village Kotli Gala Bana was allotted in his favour along with Sh. Lekh Raj, Sh. Parshotam Dass and Sh. Kuldeep Raj who were his nephews. After said allotment, Sh. Lekh Raj, Sh. Parshotam Dass and Sh. Kuldeep Raj Shifted to Poonch. They were allotted land at Village Kanotian Tehsil Haveli and settled there. Mutation order dated 19.08.1987 was also attested by Naib Tehsildar, Haveli whereby land measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas under Khasra No. 804, 806 and 506 situated at Village Kanotian Tehsil Haveli was attested in favour of Sh. Lekh Raj under Section 3(A) of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It is thus proved that Sh. Lekh Raj and his brothers migrated to Poonch and got the allotment of land as refugees and settled there. Lekh Raj under Section 3(A) of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It is thus proved that Sh. Lekh Raj and his brothers migrated to Poonch and got the allotment of land as refugees and settled there. (2) After their migration to Poonch and getting land allotted there, the entire land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas situated at village Kotli Gala Bana remained in exclusive cultivating possession of Sh. Ram Nath and his wife Smt. Ram Khetri. As per rules there was a deficiency of about 32 kanals of land, Sh. Ram Nath applied for allotment in order to make up the deficiency and, accordingly, land measuring 13 kanals 6 marlas was allotted by the competent authority in favour of Ram Nath alone in Village Badyal Brahmana. Sh. Parshotam Dass, requested his uncle Ram Nath to get him married at Jammu and Sh. Ram Nath got him married in a family belonging to Village Badyal Brahmana and after his marriage, he became 'Ghar Damad' of his in-laws and was residing in the house of his father-in-law. Since father-in-law of Parshotam Dass was not having much landed property in village Badyal Brahmana, he started claiming share of the land out of the allotted land situated in Village Kotli Gala Bana. Subsequently, Sh. Kuldeep Raj migrated from Poonch and has settled himself along with his family somewhere at Delhi permanently. (3) Sh. Parshotam Dass, father of respondent No. 4, was residing at Badyal Brahmana as 'Ghar Damad' of his in-laws, he requested his uncle Sh. Ram Nath to given him his share of land which comes about 3 kanals 5 marlas at Badyal in lieu of the land situated at Kotli Gala Bana, which was given to him. Subsequently, at the instance of Sh. Parshotam Dass, Sh. Lekh Raj and Sh. Kuldeep Raj also demanded their shares and, accordingly, the said land was given to the respondents 2 and 3 at Village Badyal Brahmana in lieu of their share in village Kotli Gala Bana. They gave the said land to Sh. Parshotam Dass, who, thus, came in possession of entire land measuring 13 kanals 6 marlas in village Badyal Brahmana and in these circumstances, land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas which was allotted at Village Kotli Gala Bana came in possession of Sh. Ram Nath and in lieu of their share, the respondents 2 and 3 and Sh. Parshotam Dass, who, thus, came in possession of entire land measuring 13 kanals 6 marlas in village Badyal Brahmana and in these circumstances, land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas which was allotted at Village Kotli Gala Bana came in possession of Sh. Ram Nath and in lieu of their share, the respondents 2 and 3 and Sh. Parshotam Dass got the land situated at village Badyal Brahmana. (4) The aforesaid arrangement has been made before 1975. Thereafter mutation Order No. 283, dated 16.03.1982 was attested in favour of Sh. Ram Nath in respect of entire land situated at village Kotli Gala Bana. Sh. Ram Nath died in the year 1987 and a succession mutation No. 404, dated 26.06.1991 was attested in favour of his wife Smt. Ram Khetri under Section 3(A) of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The said mutation has not been challenged so far. (5) In the meanwhile, the petitioner was adopted in accordance with law by said Smt. Ram Khetri by executing an adoption deed which has been duly registered. Smt. Ram Khetri died in the year 1991 and after her death, mutation Order No. 405, dated 28.02.1992 was attested in favour of the petitioner whereby he has been declared as occupancy tenant under Section 3(A) of the Agrarian Reforms Act in respect of land situated at Village Kotli Gala Bana. Mutation Order No. 404 attested in favour of Smt. Ram Khetri was challenged by Sh. Parshotam Dass on 30.09.1993. However, the revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable vide judgment dated 27.12.1996. Thereafter the mutation Order No. 404 attested in favour of Smt. Ram Khetri has not been challenged. (6) Sh. Parshotam Dass challenged mutation No. 283, dated 16.03.1982 and mutation Order No. 405 attested in favour of Ram Nath and the petitioner respectively in two separate appears in the Court of Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner. The said appeals have been allowed vide judgment dated 24.06.1999 and the case was remanded to Tehsildar, R.S. Pura for passing fresh order. Subsequently, Tehsildar vide order dated 23.12.1992, against passed order on mutation No. 405 whereby it was held that mutation 283 was correctly attested in favour of Ram Nath and after the death of Smt. Ram, Khetri, mutation No. 405 has also been correctly attested in favour of the petitioner. (7) Against the said order, an appeal was filed by Sh. Subsequently, Tehsildar vide order dated 23.12.1992, against passed order on mutation No. 405 whereby it was held that mutation 283 was correctly attested in favour of Ram Nath and after the death of Smt. Ram, Khetri, mutation No. 405 has also been correctly attested in favour of the petitioner. (7) Against the said order, an appeal was filed by Sh. Parshotam Dass before Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.06.2003 and again the case was remained to Tehsildar, R.S. Pura. (8) As submitted in the writ petition, order dated 15.06.2005 was passed by Tehsildar, R.S. Pura against the petitioner which was challenged by him in an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded back to Tehsildar, who, thereafter, passed order dated 19.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner which was challenged by the private respondents before Joint Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms in an appeal which was dismissed. The said order was challenged in a revision petition by the private respondents which has been allowed vide judgment dated 06.03.2015, against which the instant petition is pending. (9) Respondent No. 2 and 3 and Sh. Parshotam Dass got mutation Order No. 2252, dated 19.01.1999 attested in their favour as a succession mutation of Sh. Ram Nath. Sh. Ram Nath died in the year 1987, as noted above, and as per the law of succession, mutation should have also been attested in favour of Smt. Ram Khetri in respect of the land situated at Badyal Brahmana and after her death, which happened in the year 1991, mutation should have also been attested in favour of petitioner being adopted son of Smt. Ram Khetri. (10) Sh. Parshotam Dass, father of respondent No. 4 and brother of respondents 2 and 3, challenged the adoption deed dated 16.08.1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), R.S. Pura, on 28.05.2008. Sh. Parshotam Dass died and respondent No. 4 has been brought on record as his legal heir. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed on 27.02.2012 whereby the said adoption deed was set aside. (11) The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2013 and the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2012 has been set aside. The said judgment has been challenged by the respondent No. 4 before this Court in a petition which is pending. 3. (11) The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree which was allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2013 and the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2012 has been set aside. The said judgment has been challenged by the respondent No. 4 before this Court in a petition which is pending. 3. The respondents 2 to 5 have filed objections to the writ petition wherein they contended that the alleged adoption of the petitioner by Ram Khetri is already sub-judice before the Civil Court in a suit pending before Munsiff, R.S. Pura. The petitioner was neither taken in adoption by Ram Khetri on 16.08.1988 nor any ceremony of giving and taking of the petitioner was ever performed. It is incorrect that the respondents have land in any other village except village Badyal Brahmana and Kotli Gala Bana. It is also contended that the mutation No. 28 u/s. 3-A of the Agrarian reforms Act conferring occupancy rights upon Ram Khetri regarding land comprising Khasra no. 34, 35 and 69 total 09 Kanals 17 Marias situated at Kotli Gala Bana Tehsil R.S. Pura was attested behind the back of the answering respondents by the Tehsildar R.S. Pura, the said mutation was contrary to the provisions of section 15-B of Govt. Order 578-C of 1854. Further case of the respondent 2 to 5 is that the land situated in village Kotli Gala Bana was jointly allotted and they were entitled to land measuring 6 Kanals 17 Marias as per the order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the Tehsildar, R.S. Pura, which was set aside. The J&K Special Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 relied upon the Rule/Para 15 (b) of Govt. Order No. 578-C of 1854 and held that the respondents are entitled to the share of the land. The said Rule/Para has been reproduced in the order impugned. 4. The respondent No. 2 to 5 filed objections to the supplementary affidavit too wherein they have stated: (I) Ram Nath and his wife Smt. Ram Khetri were not exclusively holding the land measuring 16 kanals 03 marlas situated at Kotli Gala Bana. Ram Nath was head of the family which consisted of Ram Nath, Ram Khetri, Lekh Raj, Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj. It is incorrect that Lekh Raj, Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj had relinquished their rights to the land situated at Kotli Gala Bana and Badyal Brahmana Tehsil R.S. Pura. Ram Nath was head of the family which consisted of Ram Nath, Ram Khetri, Lekh Raj, Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj. It is incorrect that Lekh Raj, Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj had relinquished their rights to the land situated at Kotli Gala Bana and Badyal Brahmana Tehsil R.S. Pura. (II) Ram Nath was the head of the family which family consisted of Ram Nath, Ram Khetri, Lekh Raj, Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj. The family was allotted land measuring 16 kanals 03 marlas at Kotli Gala Bana and 13 kanals 06 marlas Badyal Brahmana Tehsil R.S. Pura. The allotment was for the family though headed by Ram Nath, was not an exclusive allotment to Ram Nath. Ram Nath was not in exclusive possession of the land. Land measuring 29 kanals 09 marlas situated in said two villages was not the exclusive property of Ram Nath and he was not in exclusive possession of the said land. Not only Parshotam Dass but Lekh Raj and Kuldeep Raj are also entitled to their share in the land measuring 29 kanals 09 marlas allotted to the family headed by Earn Nath being displaced persons of 1947 in equal shares. Each member of family is entitled 05 kanals and 18 marlas of the land. (III) No partition had been affected by Ram Nath of the land allotted to the family though a request was made to him in this regard. Mutation U/S 3A of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested in favour of Ram Nath on 16.03.1982. Ram Nath was conferred occupancy rights with respect to the said land. Ram Nath died in 1987, inheritance of Ram Nath has to be governed by Section 67 of the Tenancy Act. The said provision makes it clear that when a tenant having a right of occupancy in any land dies, the right shall devolve on the male lineal descendant, if any. (IV) Attestation of mutation does not confer any title, right on the person in whose favour the mutation is attested. Mutation is a fiscal entry, does not confer any right on the person. Mutation No. 283 was questioned and has been set aside. (V) Ram Nath expired in 1987 whereas alleged adoption of the petitioner is of August, 1988. (IV) Attestation of mutation does not confer any title, right on the person in whose favour the mutation is attested. Mutation is a fiscal entry, does not confer any right on the person. Mutation No. 283 was questioned and has been set aside. (V) Ram Nath expired in 1987 whereas alleged adoption of the petitioner is of August, 1988. Petitioner was never adopted by Ram Nath nor Ram Nath authorized Ram Khetri to adopt a male child, thus the alleged adoption of petitioner is illegal and confers no right and title on the petitioner. Adoption of the petitioner is under challenge in a civil suit. The petitioner does not enjoy occupancy rights with respect to the land involved in the writ petition. Attestation of mutation does not confer any such right in favour of the petitioner. 5. A quick reference of the events chronologically (as pleaded by petitioner) is: 01. 16.03.1982 Mutation No. 283 under Section 3(A) Agrarian Reforms Act with respect to 9 kanals 17 marlas in Khasra numbers 34, 35 and 69 in Kotli Gala Bana R.S. Pura in favour of Ram Nath. 02. 1987 Death of Ram Nath, Original Allottee. 03. 19.08.1987 Mutation No. 277 of allotment of 12 kanals 10 marlas in village Kanotian Haveli in favour of respondent No. 3 Lekh Raj. 04. 17.08.1988 Adoption of petitioner of Swaran Singh as son by Smt. Ram Khetri, widow of Ram Nath. 05. 22.06.1991 Mutation of inheritance No. 404 on death of Ram Nath with respect to his allotted land of 9 kanals 17 marlas in Kotli Gala Bana R.S. Pura in favour of his widow Ram Khetri. 06. 1991 Death of Ram Khetri. 07. 28.03.1992 Mutation of inheritance No. 405 on death of Smt. Ram Khetri in favour of the petitioner Swaran Singh as being her adopted son. 08. 26.05.1992 Appeal by Parshotam Dass only against mutations No. 283 and 405 before Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner Jammu. 09. 27.12.1996 J&K Special Tribunal dismissing the appeal against mutation No. 404 of Parshotam Dass on account of non-maintainable. 10. 14.01.1999 Mutation No. 2252 on death of Ram Nath attested in favour of the respondents with respect to allotted land in Badyal Brahmana Jammu. 11. 24.06.1999 In appeals against mutation Nos. 283 and 405 Jt. ARC Jammu sets aside two mutations and remands the matter. 12. 10. 14.01.1999 Mutation No. 2252 on death of Ram Nath attested in favour of the respondents with respect to allotted land in Badyal Brahmana Jammu. 11. 24.06.1999 In appeals against mutation Nos. 283 and 405 Jt. ARC Jammu sets aside two mutations and remands the matter. 12. 18.12.1999 Fresh orders by Tehsildar Settlement R.S. Pura on mutations 283 and 405 challenged by the respondents Parshotam Dass and Kuldeep Raj before Jt. ARC Jammu. 13. 26.06.2003 Jt. ARC Jammu remands matter to the Tehsildar R.S. Pura with respect to two mutations challenged by respondents. 14. 28.03.2003 Revision before the J&K Special Tribunal filed against order dated 26.06.2003 by petitioner Swam Singh. 15. 24.03.2004 Revision filed by the petitioner against Jt. ARC order dated 26.06.2003 dismissed by J&K Special Tribunal. 16. 15.06.2005 Order in remand proceedings by Tehsildar R.S. Pura directs handing over possession of 6 kanal 17 marlas land to respondents 2, 3 and LRs of Parshotam Dass. 17. 3.08.2005 (DOI) 11.02.2006 (DOD) Appeal against Tehsildar order dated 15.06.2005 filed by the petitioner Swaran Singh before Jt. ARC Jammu accepted and remanded matter for de novo inquiry. 18. 19.10.2009 Fresh order in remand proceedings by the Tehsildar R. S. Pura in favour of the petitioner Swaran Singh. 19. 18.07.2013 Jt. ARC Jammu dismissed appeals of respondents against order dated 19.10.2009. 20. 31.07.2013 Revision by the private Respondents before Special Tribunal against order dated 18.07.2013 of Jt. ARC. 21. 6.03.2015 Impugned order passed by special tribunal Jammu. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is non-speaking and clearly shows non-application of mind. The respondent No. 1 has exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a finding which is neither based on facts nor on the document/record. According to him, the revisional court has to restrict itself to the powers provided under Section 21(2) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act which envisages that the power of revision can be exercised only if there is 'question of law' or 'public interest' involved in the matter. According to him, the impugned order clearly shows that there was neither question of law nor of public interest involved in the matter, therefore, impugned order is without jurisdiction. 8. According to him, the impugned order clearly shows that there was neither question of law nor of public interest involved in the matter, therefore, impugned order is without jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the learned Tribunal has not framed any question of public importance or question of law. The observations of learned Tribunal are not only erroneous and perverse but also against the admitted facts. The findings of fact recorded by the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner as well as Tehsildar, R.S. Pura have not been reversed on any of the grounds specified in Section 21(2) of the Act but by giving hypothetical reasoning. It is also projected that the learned Tribunal failed to consider another aspect that the other dated 15.06.2005, which has been restored, already stood set aside by order dated 11.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner. According to him, the order impugned is wholly perverse, non-speaking and against the spirit of law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 9. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Lekh Raj is still living at Poonch on the said allotted land. Otherwise also, they have not placed on record that the said allotment was cancelled. The stand taken by respondents 2 to 5 in the memo of petition filed before the Tribunal and in the supplementary affidavit are conflicting and self-defeating. In para 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been pleaded that Sh. Parshotam Dass was got married by Sh. Ram Nath at Badyal Brahmana and he was residing there. In reply to said para, it has been admitted that Parshotam Dass was Ghar Damad of his in-laws. 10. It is also contended that Sh. Ram Nath died in the year 1987 and the land measuring 13 kanals 6 marlas situated at village Badyal Brahmana which was allotted to him would have been inherited by Smt. Ram Khetri. But since the partition had already taken place and the land situated at village Badyal Brahmana was given to Sh. Parshotam Dass and his brothers, therefore, the said land remained with them. They have also got a Mutation Order No. 2252, dated 16-1-1999 attested in their favour exclusively. A copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-M at page No. 46 with the supplementary affidavit. Parshotam Dass and his brothers, therefore, the said land remained with them. They have also got a Mutation Order No. 2252, dated 16-1-1999 attested in their favour exclusively. A copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-M at page No. 46 with the supplementary affidavit. The aforesaid facts, therefore, clearly and conclusively, according to learned counsel, proves that the family has disintegrated and the land has been partitioned. Sh. Parshotam Dass and his brothers, therefore, were holding the land about 32 kanals 16 marlas i.e. 18 Kanals 10 marlas situated at village Kanotian, Tehsil Haveli and land measuring 13 kanals 6 marlas at village Badyal Brahmana. Sh. Ram Nath was having only 16 kanals 3 marlas of land at Kotli Gala Bana. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the findings have been given by ld. Tribunal merely on the ground that the respondents have denied the allotment. Concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed by opining so. It is further contended that Section 67 and 68 of the Tenancy Act are applicable only in respect of the occupancy tenancies as defined there under and, admittedly, under the Tenancy Act, there is no provision for allotment of land. Even otherwise also, under Section 67 and 68 of the Tenancy Act, an adopted son can also inherit the tenancy rights, is also being submitted. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 while reiterating the averments projected in the objections, contended that the partition had to be affected in terms of Rule 15(b) of Government Order No. 578-C of 1954. He has relied upon para 3 of the said Rules which is reproduced below:- "Where the allottee family has disintegrated, partition may, after such enquiry as may be necessary, and upon the application submitted by him, be confirmed by the Tehsildar." 13. It is contended that as per the said Rules, in case the family had disintegrated, partition had taken place; the same could be confirmed by the Tehsildar. The counsel for the respondents has argued that such confirmation can be made only on the application to be submitted in this behalf. 14. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 that the petitioner has been adopted by Ram Khetri after the death of her husband Ram Nath. The counsel for the respondents has argued that such confirmation can be made only on the application to be submitted in this behalf. 14. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 that the petitioner has been adopted by Ram Khetri after the death of her husband Ram Nath. There is no share of Ram Nath left in the allotted land. The mutation under Section 3-A was to be attested in favour of the respondents 2 to 5 and Ram Khetri being members of family which has not been done. 15. According to learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5, the finding of the appellate court that the parties have partitioned the land is an observation without any basis. No partition of the land had been made as each allottee family member has share of 3 kanals and 4 marlas in village Kotli Gala Bana and 2 kanals 13 marlas in village Badyal Brahmana (in total 5 kanals 17 marlas each). Ram Nath has been conferred occupancy rights over 16 kanals 3 marlas to which he was not entitled. 16. It is further projected that the petitioner has not been held as the adopted son of deceased Ram Nath by the competent court so far. The petitioner even otherwise has not locus standi to claim the share in the allotted land. In case he establishes himself to be the adopted son in the alltottee family, he can apply for share of land in village Badyal Brahmana as directed by the Tehsildar in his order. Reliance is taken on "Amar Nath v. State of J&K & Ors." 2004 (2) JKJ 530 [HC], to substantiate the plea so raised. 17. Considered the rival arguments. On perusal of the judgment of learned Tribunal, it is evident that the respondents 2 to 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of Laxmi Chand and Parshotam Dass respectively, had called in question the order passed by joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 18.07.2013 where-under mutation order No. 283 and 405 of Village Kotli Gala Bana Tehsil R.S. Pura in respect of Khasra No's 34 (04 kanal-02 marlas), 35 (06 kanal-17 marlas), 62 (04 kanals-15 marlas), 69 (09 marlas) passed by Tehsildar R.S. Pura, have been upheld. The points, which had been taken before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, are: 1. The points, which had been taken before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, are: 1. The appellants and Ram Nath and his wife Ram Puri (Ram Khetri) constituted the family at the time of allotment. Ram Nath died in 1987. Ram Khetri before her death stated to have adopted the respondent. So the share of allotted land is governed by SRO 739 of Evacuee Property Rules. The Tehsildar in violation of mandatory provisions of law has passed the order giving land to the respondent beyond his share in the village and excluded the appellants thus deprived the appellants from the share, so the order is nullity. 2. The land is allotted to displaced persons family in two villages namely Kotli Gala Bana and Badyal Brahmana. Kotli Gala Bana has very high market value whereas Badyal Brahmana has very low value which has not considered by the court below. 3. The land has not been partitioned as contended. Partition of land has to be made under Rule 15-B sub-rule 3 of allotment rules which had not happened so far and vesting rights under Section 3-A in favour of Ram Nath deceased was without jurisdiction and thus vesting the same rights in favour of respondent was also against the mandatory provisions of law. 4. Land has to be distributed by survivorship as contained in guidelines contained in para 15-A and 15-B of Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954, which has not been appreciated by the Court below. 5. Land is allotted in two villages, Kotli Gala Bana 16 kanals 3 marlas and Badyal Brahmana 13 kanals 6 marlas, total 29 kanals 9 marlas and Ram Khetri was entitled to 4 kanals only which would go to her adopted son after her death. Vesting rights under Section 3-A for 16 kanals 3 marlas in favour of Ram Nath and then same rights in favour of respondent No. 1 is not legal order and requires to be quashed. 6. Land falling under Kh. No. 62 (04 kls-15 mls) of Kotli Gala Bana stand exchanged by Ram Nath as observed by Tehsildar vide order dated 15.06.2005. This has not been adjudicated by the court below and vested rights under Section 3-A in favour of Ram Nath, a dead person when there was no share of Ram Nath in existence. 7. Ram Nath was not declared as occupancy tenant during his life time. This has not been adjudicated by the court below and vested rights under Section 3-A in favour of Ram Nath, a dead person when there was no share of Ram Nath in existence. 7. Ram Nath was not declared as occupancy tenant during his life time. Swaran Singh was not the family member of Ram Nath but was adopted by Ram Khetri after the death of Ram Nath, so such right of Ram Nath could not go to the respondent by way of inheritance as the said rights would go to Ram Khetri by survivorship. 18. The learned Commissioner after noting that there was an entry in the cancellation register at serial No. 7 of village Kotli Gala Bana that Ram Nath S/o. Gopi Nath was a displaced person of 1947 and land measuring 16 kanals 16 marlas had been allotted in his favour along with four other persons, i.e. Ram Khetri (wife), Lekh Raj (cousin), Parshotam (cousin) and Kuldeep (cousin), found no ground for interference and dismissed the appeal." 19. The learned Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, i.e. the appellate authority, had dealt with the issue raised before it in terms of the appeal, with the following observations: "It has been found that as per copy of cancellation register s. No. 7 of Kotli Gala Bana Tehsil R.S. Pura Ram Nath S/o. Gopi Chand was displaced person of 1947 and land measuring 16 kls 16 mls had been allotted in his favour and his family strength was 5 soles namely: 1. Ram Nath self, 2. Ram Khetri W/o Ram Nath, 3. Lekh Raj cousin, 4. Parshotam cousin, 5. Kuldeep cousin. In addition to this as per copy of cancellation register S. No. 47 land measuring 13 kls 06 mls was allotted exclusively in favour of said Ram Nath in village Badyal Brahmana Tehsil R.S. Pura. Likewise, land measuring 11 Kls 17 Mls stand allotted in favour of Lekh Raj and Parshotam Dass Ss/o Laxmi Chand in village Kanotian Poonch which is evident from Form "A ". on this Form, Patwari concerned has reported that land under Kh. No. 150 (05 Kls-16 Mls) and 163 (06 Kls-01 Mls) total measuring (11 Kls-17 Mls) situated at village Kanotian Tehsil Poonch is allotted in favour of Lekh Raj and in his cultivation. on this Form, Patwari concerned has reported that land under Kh. No. 150 (05 Kls-16 Mls) and 163 (06 Kls-01 Mls) total measuring (11 Kls-17 Mls) situated at village Kanotian Tehsil Poonch is allotted in favour of Lekh Raj and in his cultivation. Form A of Poonch and cancellation register of village Kotli Gala Bana and Badyal Brahmana are enclosed with the written arguments of respondent. Further it has been found in village Badyal Brahamana the vide mutation No. 2252 inheritance of Ram Nath has been sanctioned in favour of appellants i.e. Lekh Raj and others Ss/o Laxmi Chand. In this village Ram Khetri and his adopted son Swaran Singh was also entitled to inherit the share of Ram Nath deceased. It is crystal clear that appellant and respondent have privately partitioned the allotted land and appellants have retrained the land in village Badyal Brahamana and respondent has retained land of Kotli Gala Bana. Appellants have been allotted land in village Kanotian Tehsil Poonch also." 20. Learned Tehsildar had also formed an opinion on the basis of available record and the enquiry held by him that land measuring 16 kanal 03 marlas has been allotted in favour of Ram Nath S/o. Gopi along with other family members Lekh Raj, Parshotam Das, Kuldeep Raj Sons of Laxmi Chand and Ram Khetri (his wife). The land was allotted to these persons in two villages and had been privately partitioned. The land at Kotli Gala Bana was held by Ram Nath whereas land at Badyal Brahmana was held in possession by respondents 2 to 5. Tehsildar also concluded that the respondents had also land measuring 11 kanals and 17 marlas at village Kanotian Poonch and so findings of fact had been recorded by the Tehsildar and Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, the authorities empowered in terms of Agrarian Reforms Act, to enquire into the matter. 21. Before learned Tribunal, some of the pleas taken by the petitioner therein (respondents 2 to 5 herein) were: 1. Impugned orders under revision are against law, facts, besides without jurisdiction, 2. Petitioners are the family members of Ram Nath at the time of Registration of Form 'A' as well as at the time of allotment of suit land, 3. 21. Before learned Tribunal, some of the pleas taken by the petitioner therein (respondents 2 to 5 herein) were: 1. Impugned orders under revision are against law, facts, besides without jurisdiction, 2. Petitioners are the family members of Ram Nath at the time of Registration of Form 'A' as well as at the time of allotment of suit land, 3. Suit land was being cultivated jointly by all the family members, who after their bifurcation are entitled for their equal share as per Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954 read with Rule 15-B(3) of said Rules. 4. High Court of J&K in a land mark judgment dated 16.07.2005 in case titled Sardar Singh and others v. J&K Special Tribunal and others LPA (OWP) No. 23-A/2000 has held that the provision of SRO 328, dated 23.06.1969 shall apply to such allotment made to the displaced person of family of 1947 and mutation u/s. 3-A of the Act shall be attested accordingly, 5. Tehsildar R.S. Pura after detailed enquiry vide order dated 15.06.2005 has rightly held that petitioners and Ram Nath were entitled for the suit land in equal share, 6. Ram Nath during his life time exchanged his share of 04 kanals 15 marlas of land with one Tula Ram S/o. Thakur Dass, out of his total share of 05 kanals 17 marlas, so their remains his share of only 01 kanal 13 marlas, 7. Mst. Ram Khetri after the death of her husband was not entitled to adopt responded No. 01 (Swaran Singh) as his son, which adoption deed stands declared as null and void by the competent court of jurisdiction vide order dated 27.02.2012 and the respondent No. 1 has been permanently restrained from selling, alienating, interfering or transferring the suit land, 8. There is no land at Poonch in possession of the petitioners and if there is any allotment in their favour it exists in papers but was never cultivated by petitioners and in play. 22. Before learned Tribunal, some of the pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 therein (petitioner herein) in the written arguments/arguments were: 1. Revision has been filed against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, so same is not maintainable, 2. 22. Before learned Tribunal, some of the pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 therein (petitioner herein) in the written arguments/arguments were: 1. Revision has been filed against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, so same is not maintainable, 2. Revision petition, in fact, is a second appeal which is not maintainable under the Act and moreover there is no substantial question of law as defined under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code and also no public importance involved, 3. Order dated 15.06.2005 passed by Tehsildar R.S. Pura was illegal one, that is why same was set aside by the Commissioner on an appeal filed by the respondent and thereafter the Tehsildar R.S. Pura after de-novo enquiry passed a well-reasoned order based on records as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, 4. The appeal before Commissioner was not maintainable because the same was filled by an incompetent person and also that the legal heirs of one of the deceased appellate (Parshotam Dass) were not brought on records within the prescribed period of six months, 5. The petitioners in appeal filed before Commissioner have admitted the status of respondent being adopted son of Mst. Ram Khetri so is entitled to the estate left by her, 6. Through a mutual partition between Ram Nath and petitioners, it was settled that the petitioners will retain land at village Badyal Brahmana and also at Poonch whereas Ram Nath has retained land at village Kotli Gala Bana only although due to some reason that mutual partition was not given effect in revenue records, 7. Exparte decree obtained by the petitioners against answer respondent of adoption deed stands challenged before the competent civil court who vide order dated 04.02.2013 stayed the operation of said decree, 8. Petitioners never challenged Mutation No. 404, 405 and 2252. 23. The learned Tribunal dealt these points with the following pertinent observations: "..It is clear that after the death of an allottee his interest in the allotted land shall devolve on another members of the family in whose favour originally the allotment was made and also on those who have become members of the family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after such allotment excluding those who have died earlier or have left the family on account of marriage of adoption. It is also clear that in the event of disintegration or partition, every member of the family is entitled to equal share in the allotted land. I do not agree with the observation of Commissioner made in his order dated 11-02-2006 that petitioners having allotment at Poonch in view of the facts that the petitioners have denied the same and also that the answering respondent has not placed on records of this case any latest revenue documents showing the said land in possession of petitioners rather that I fully agree that in the event of non-cultivation of said allotted land by petitioners Rule 5 of Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954 must have come to play. In view of the discussion made herein above, the undersigned while exercising powers vested in me u/s. 21(2) of the Act, accept the revision petition and set aside the order dated 18.09.2013 and 19.10.2009 passed by Commissioner and Tehsildar R.S. Pura respectively and restore the order dated 15.06.2005 passed by Tehsildar R.S. Pura. Stay order/status quo order issued in this case by this Tribunal shall stand vacated." 24. As noted hereinabove, one of the grounds raised for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is that there has been infraction of the principle on which power of revision could be exercised by the Tribunal under Agrarian Reforms Act. It is being stated that the Tribunal has no power to disturb a finding of fact by the authorities delineated under the Act and it would be only when a question of law or public importance is involved the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction. The pertinent provision in Section 21 of the Agrarian Reforms Act is sub-section (2), which, for convenience, is reproduced here-under: "(2) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of any evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit: Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard. 25. 25. The power vested in learned Tribunal, as seen from the text used in the above referred Section, is restricted and it would be only when a question of law or an issue of public importance is involved for determination, that records can be called by the Revisory Authority-originally Revenue Minister and later the Tribunal which has been invested with the powers of Revenue Minister. A party dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the Revenue Officers referred in Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act does not possess a statutory right to have the records called and the issues re-examined again. Legislature in its wisdom has thought it proper to put a seal to the judgments of the authorities referred in the hierarchy therein and to re-open it only if the conditions noted therein are satisfied. 26. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Mohd. Sultan & Ors. v. State & Ors.", 2007 (2) JKJ[HC] 546, while interpreting Section 21 of the Act stated that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the Tribunal to examine a matter involving question of law or of public importance and by implication it excludes the re-appraisal/re-evaluation of material purely concerning factual aspects. 27. Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Permanand v. Special Tribunal, J&K Jammu" 2017 (4) JK LRJ 670 [HC] reported in 1999 SLJ 245, while laying down similar principle observed that the Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by acting in a manner as if it was exercising powers of an appellate court. 28. I don't find any question of law or an issue of public importance having been framed by the Tribunal on which it deemed necessary to return a finding. It has rather stated that 'it does not agree' with the observations of the Commissioner made in order dated 11.02.2006, which was not the subject matter for examination before the Tribunal at the time impugned order has been rendered. The Tribunal has also stated that the petitioners before it have denied the said fact and the other-side has not placed on record latest revenue record showing the said land in possession of the petitioners. There is total non-application of mind on the part of learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has also stated that the petitioners before it have denied the said fact and the other-side has not placed on record latest revenue record showing the said land in possession of the petitioners. There is total non-application of mind on the part of learned Tribunal. Cases cannot be decided on the perception of a Presiding Officer as all the Judicial Authorities are supposed to examine the issues raised before it in the light of applicable law. 29. Admittedly, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities have been reversed by the learned Tribunal. Both the authorities below the Tribunal had been of the opinion that there had been a private partition among the allottees and so the property at Kotli Gala Bana had been retained by Late Ram Nath and other members of family had occupied other properties. Illegality if any, in rendering such a finding of fact, which stood transformed into a question of law as required by Section 21 of the Act, has not been noted by learned Tribunal. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is stemmed on two grounds, first the respondents herein have denied the assertion of private partition and the pleas taken by the petitioner herein and secondly, the petitioner herein having failed to produce latest revenue record showing the said land in possession of the respondents. The authorities whose orders had been challenged had based their finding while having considered the respective contentions and the material available before them. The learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the purport of the power vested in it as a revisory forum. It was under an obligation to call the pertinent record if in its opinion its perusal was needed, after being satisfied that the question of law or of public importance was involved for adjudication and to render, accordingly, a finding on it. The petitioner herein or even the respondents 2 to 5 had not been technically under an obligation to produce any fresh material before the Tribunal for re-appraisal of the evidence on which the two authorities referred hereinabove had based their decision. 30. The petitioner herein or even the respondents 2 to 5 had not been technically under an obligation to produce any fresh material before the Tribunal for re-appraisal of the evidence on which the two authorities referred hereinabove had based their decision. 30. In this view of the matter, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal by reversing the concurrent findings of fact of subordinate revenue officers has exceeded its jurisdiction " and, as such, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable in the eyes of law being without jurisdiction. Petition succeeds and by issuance of Writ of Certiorari order dated 06.03.2015 passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove while affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The learned Tribunal shall formulate a question of law in case it is satisfied that there is scope for entertaining the revision petition and any question of law or issue of public importance is involved for determination and shall determine it accordingly. 31. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Tribunal for information and compliance.